Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Dr. Durgesh Rathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2022 cites

Vijay Alias Gyan Chand Jain vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 1994

8 Law laid down Rule 42(1)(a) of the M.P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Notice of Voluntarily retirement does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dr.Harendra Jaseja reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 5940; Ruksana Begum Siddiqui vs. State of M.P & others reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 74; Dr.Ashish Kumar Pal vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.4127/2014 decided on 14.10.2014); Dr.Nagion Chandra Jain vs. State of M.P & others (W.P No.8484/2014 decided on 21.11.2014) & Dr. Bharat Singh Chauhan vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.6549/2015 decided on 22.9.2015) which have been distinguished by the writ court in the impugned judgement are held to be good and still holding the field, in which the similar controversy has been resolved by considering the provisions of Rule 42 (1)(a) of the Rules of 1976 which does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority as it is a unilateral act of the government servant to quit the Government service at his will after rendering the minimum service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 93 - G N Ray - Full Document

Ashish Kumar Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 January, 2020

8 Law laid down Rule 42(1)(a) of the M.P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Notice of Voluntarily retirement does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dr.Harendra Jaseja reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 5940; Ruksana Begum Siddiqui vs. State of M.P & others reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 74; Dr.Ashish Kumar Pal vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.4127/2014 decided on 14.10.2014); Dr.Nagion Chandra Jain vs. State of M.P & others (W.P No.8484/2014 decided on 21.11.2014) & Dr. Bharat Singh Chauhan vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.6549/2015 decided on 22.9.2015) which have been distinguished by the writ court in the impugned judgement are held to be good and still holding the field, in which the similar controversy has been resolved by considering the provisions of Rule 42 (1)(a) of the Rules of 1976 which does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority as it is a unilateral act of the government servant to quit the Government service at his will after rendering the minimum service.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - R K Dubey - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Harendra Jaseja on 7 October, 2014

8 Law laid down Rule 42(1)(a) of the M.P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Notice of Voluntarily retirement does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority. State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Dr.Harendra Jaseja reported in 2014 SCC OnLine MP 5940; Ruksana Begum Siddiqui vs. State of M.P & others reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 74; Dr.Ashish Kumar Pal vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.4127/2014 decided on 14.10.2014); Dr.Nagion Chandra Jain vs. State of M.P & others (W.P No.8484/2014 decided on 21.11.2014) & Dr. Bharat Singh Chauhan vs. State of M.P & others (W.P.No.6549/2015 decided on 22.9.2015) which have been distinguished by the writ court in the impugned judgement are held to be good and still holding the field, in which the similar controversy has been resolved by considering the provisions of Rule 42 (1)(a) of the Rules of 1976 which does not require corresponding acceptance of appointing authority as it is a unilateral act of the government servant to quit the Government service at his will after rendering the minimum service.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kalpana Singh @ Usha Singh vs Krishan Raj Singh Judgement Given By: ... on 9 April, 2014

42. There are several decisions of the High Court, namely, Anil Dewan v. State; State of Punjab v. Harbir Singh Dhillon and Kalpana Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which were cited to show that the decision in Dinesh Chandra Sangma had been followed. We have considered the aforesaid decisions and we find that it would depend upon the scheme of the Rules. Each and every judgment has to be considered in the light of the provisions which came up for consideration and question it has decided, language employed in the Rules, and it cannot be said to be of general application as already observed by this Court in State of Haryana.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Others vs Dr. Harbir Singh Dhillon ---Respondent on 4 August, 2010

42. There are several decisions of the High Court, namely, Anil Dewan v. State; State of Punjab v. Harbir Singh Dhillon and Kalpana Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which were cited to show that the decision in Dinesh Chandra Sangma had been followed. We have considered the aforesaid decisions and we find that it would depend upon the scheme of the Rules. Each and every judgment has to be considered in the light of the provisions which came up for consideration and question it has decided, language employed in the Rules, and it cannot be said to be of general application as already observed by this Court in State of Haryana.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - A N Jindal - Full Document

Anil Kumar Dewar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2018

42. There are several decisions of the High Court, namely, Anil Dewan v. State; State of Punjab v. Harbir Singh Dhillon and Kalpana Singh v. State of Rajasthan, which were cited to show that the decision in Dinesh Chandra Sangma had been followed. We have considered the aforesaid decisions and we find that it would depend upon the scheme of the Rules. Each and every judgment has to be considered in the light of the provisions which came up for consideration and question it has decided, language employed in the Rules, and it cannot be said to be of general application as already observed by this Court in State of Haryana.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1